DVDActive uses cookies to remember your actions, such as your answer in the poll. Cookies are
also used by third-parties for statistics, social media and advertising. By using this website, it is
assumed that you agree to this.

Warner Home Video announces DVD and Blu-ray releases of the 2010 movie

Further Details:
Warner Home Video has announced DVD ($28.98) and Blu-ray/DVD Combo ($35.99) releases of A Nightmare on Elm Street for October 5th. As far as we know, the only extra material on the DVD release will be a Freddy Krueger Reborn featurette. The Blu-ray release will include that, along with a Maniacle Movie Mode, an Alternate Opening, an Alternate Ending, a Deleted Scene, and a digital copy of the film. We've attached the official package artwork for each of the releases below:

Synopsis

Quote: Five teenage friends living on one street all dream of a sinister man with a disfigured face, a frightening voice and a gardener’s glove with knives for fingers. But when one among them dies, they soon realize that what happens in their dreams happens for real and the only way to stay alive is to stay awake. Buried in their past is a debt that has just come due. To save themselves, they must plunge into the mind of the most twisted nightmare of all: Freddy Krueger. Jackie Earle Haley plays the legendary evildoer in this contemporary reimagining of the seminal horror classic.

Advertisements

Comments

Reply

Message

Enter the message here then press submit. The username, password and message are required. Please make the message constructive, you are fully responsible for the legality of anything you contribute. Terms & conditions apply.

Wow. Based on what I've been reading in the comments, this isn't really good. So I'm probably going to buy this at Blockbuster where it's cheap or I'll ask for it for Christmas. Not really in a rush anymore to buy this.

I liked it enough to buy the Blu-Ray,but to be honest if it wasn't for the fact that the Blu-Ray has the Maniacle Movie Mode,I'd probably stuck with a previously viewed Blockbuster DVD purchase instead but I'm a sucker for Maximum Movie Mode like features so I will buy it. But I will probably wait until it hits $15 somewhere before a purchase.

Meh, this was OK at best. I love the NIGHTMARE series and was hoping this would be a solid remake (I did love TCM 2003 afterall), but that wasn't the case. It was fairly uninteresting. FREDDY VS. JASON is indeed better. That was at least incredibly entertaining.

this was surprisingly boring. even the dream sequences didn't seem SO out there and OMG!! God bless Jackie Earle. he tried his best w/ what the terrible script allowed him to do. and the original's "Freddy coming through the wall" dream moment is a TRILLION, BILLION, JILLION times better than the c**ppy CGI "Freddy through the wall" moment in this remake. the fx were all around better in the original. i DO love Katie Cassidy though. so at least it had that. and i DO like the "reveal" (about if Freddy DID or DID NOT molest the kids) towards the end. and the final GOTCHA!! moment was fun.

Chris Gould wrote: I actually think the film would have benefited from the 'twist' about Freddy's crimes actually being the truth, rather than the utterly predicable red herring that it was. A least that would have been a fresh take on things. As it was, the film was a load of toss.

I definitely agree with this. It seems they backed themselves in the corner because the whole reason for Freddy killing the teens was for revenge. Now that he (seemingly) has gotten them all (well, except Nancy and Quentin) who else is he going to go after? If he had been innocent, I feel it would have opened more doors up for them (and Freddy).

I actually think the film would have benefited from the 'twist' about Freddy's crimes actually being the truth, rather than the utterly predicable red herring that it was. A least that would have been a fresh take on things. As it was, the film was a load of toss.

I hated the movie and I'm a long standing NOES fan, I actually did fall asleep. My mother who is as weak as it comes with horror sat through it and didn't flinch or turn away. The acting was horrendous on every account but Kyle Galners. He acted circles around everyone. The girl playing Nacy drove me nuts simply because it seemed as if her mouth was wired shut the entire time. The special effects were so awful, when you can take something from an early 80s movie and make it worse, yeah just stop.

Biggest issue Jacke Earl Haley. Not intimidating, scary or even brought any personality to the role. His height annoyed me to no end simply because in some scenes the women were taller then him and it was a bit distracting.

the franchise died in 1989 and then was buried deep in 1991. I see it more like it was in a deep coma. With the right person penning the script and the right man behind the camera they could have UPDATED it, gone back to it's roots and keep Englund. All the trash and comedy of part 4,5 and especially part 6 and FvJ could just be sidestepped because people still remember Freddy as scary.

So I think a remake and killing Englunds character wasn't necessary - they could have made a great movie for the 21th centaury within the original timeline so to speak.

Present day - 2010. Teenagers in Springwood start to dream about a burned man. Soon they start to die. Freddy is back. Scary. Less humour. Some great "is she asleep or not?"-scenes like in the first. get Alice back or not.

I mean, so long has gone since the series prime that updating and keeping it going equals = getting back to the roots. But remaking it and making everything worse sis not (and was not) the key.

Not a bad movie at all, similar to the original but had enough variations to make it different from the Englund entries. I really liked Jackie Earle Haley as Freddy, he did a superb job making the character his own. (People seem to forget that New Line and Platinum Dunes wanted to REDO the franchise, which meant Englund would be out of the picture as Freddy.)

The thing that irritated me was that almost every scare was telegraphed in advance (every time Freddy appears the subwoofer goes crazy). And most importantly, the lines between waking and dreaming aren't wonderfully blurred like they are in the original film, or even this year's "Inception."

iszac wrote: horrorfan25 wrote: iszac wrote: Really another of disappointment cause of the lack of extras... The movie was fine, at least it was better than the original for me.

To each there own, but you thought the remake was better than the original? Like I said, I'm not going to judge you as that would be ignorant since everyone has their own opinions, but, for me, I can't see why. I mean the original had better performances, didn't take itself TOO seriously, had better pacing, and overall better special effects and more gore. The two departments that the remake ONLY tops the original in is having a darker tone and better production values. I mean, I didn't HATE the remake, but the original, in my opinion, is way better.

For me, the new one aren't a good movie, but in some way, are better than the original, I can't deny that the original with good special effects and dead scenes, but I really hated how the old Nancy acted, was very not convincing. I dislike every scenes with her. The new Freddy is darker and more serious, but less creepy. The old one creepier but honestly I'm not a dark humor Freddy's Fan. I can feel that the new one is kinda like giving salute to the old one, tried to keep some good elements and give away the bad ones. Conclusion for me personally, both aren't really great, but the new one wasn't that bad as people said as well. P.S: It has already better than Friday The 13th (2009), that was the worst movie experience for me in 2009.

I can see your point of view on a few things. I agree that I liked Freddy's action in this one. More serious and down right cold-hearted. No silly humor and just sinister. And I did like that the remake tried to bring the audience good elements, while paying off homages.

Although, I don't see how you didn't like Nancy in the original. In my opinion, like I said, my opinion, I thought she was PERFECT. LOVED her character. Couldn't think of one thing I didn't like about her. Although, some of Freddy's "humor", is kind of what made it scarier. I mean here Freddy is in a SERIOUS situation, almost murdering a victim, and laughs about it. Is he insane?

And call me crazy, but I actually liked the F13 remake more than this, but just by a TAD. Yes, I know in terms of acting and story, ANOES remake takes the cake. But F13 remake lacked something that the ANOES remake lacked: FUN. F13 was a lot of fun because of its break-neck pace, high body count, and its flesh. It payed great homages to its predecessors while being its own movie. However, like I said, I liked it a "little" more. Not a LOT. Personally, both movies aren't bad (the remakes of F13 and ANOES), but they aren't that great.

slapshot63 wrote: How can you people honestly say this was that bad? Sure, it wasn't amazing, but it was MILES better than the dreck that was Nightmare's 4-6 and FvJ. This is easily the fourth best entry in the series, behind Nightmares 1,3 and WCNN (in no particular order).

Call me crazy, but I actually liked A nightmare on Elm Street 4 AND Freddy vs. Jason. What was wrong with ANOES 4? Likable characters, great gore, EXTREMELY disturbing (the cockroach scene), and it was really fast paced. And may I add that the deaths were awesome. Sure we were introduced to "comedian Freddy", but he was actually pretty sick in that movie. Freddy vs. Jason, while I admit, the characters were STUPID, it had AWESOME gore, was paced pretty faced, and the fighting scenes between Freddy and Jason kicked ASS.

I didn't hate the ANOES remake, but to say it's better than ANOES 4 and FVJ is a little on the silly side. But, to each their own.

the franchise died in 1989 and then was buried deep in 1991. 1994 and 2003 were good attempts at a possible revival but nothing can undo the damage of 1991...my word.

the way i see it, it was either a remake that many think is bad or another sequel with Englund that many would think is bad. cuz face it, the "fans" hate everything these days so least Englund got his glory days and will always be remembered for it. and least in my opinion, 2003 was a fantastic way to go out and say goodbye.

but all that to say they wouldnt have made a remake if they believed the franchise had anything left to offer. i just had a terrible idea, imagine if they attempted an actual sequel but with someone new? :O glad it didnt come to that.

How can you people honestly say this was that bad? Sure, it wasn't amazing, but it was MILES better than the dreck that was Nightmare's 4-6 and FvJ. This is easily the fourth best entry in the series, behind Nightmares 1,3 and WCNN (in no particular order).

horrorfan25 wrote: Don Jariyasunant wrote: I was disappointed in this one. The lead actress who played Nancy (Rooney Mara) was horrible. The only good thing about this movie was Katie Cassidy even though she was miscast as a high school student.

You preferred Kris (Cassidy) to Nancy (Mara)? Okay, I have to admit, both of their performances were stale, but Nancy was definitely better than Kris. Kris over acted in every scene and it truly shows. Nancy, while she under-acted in some parts, it wasn't in EVERY scene. Progressively, she got better. Again, that's not saying much but I find it a little questionable that you prefer Kris to Nancy.

Pretty much all the performances on this movie was flat to stale.

As far as Kris and Nancy goes, I find Katie Cassidy much more attractive and she has a much more commanding presense on screen than Rooney Mara, so that's why I think she was enjoyable in this movie.

horrorfan25 wrote: iszac wrote: Really another of disappointment cause of the lack of extras... The movie was fine, at least it was better than the original for me.

To each there own, but you thought the remake was better than the original? Like I said, I'm not going to judge you as that would be ignorant since everyone has their own opinions, but, for me, I can't see why. I mean the original had better performances, didn't take itself TOO seriously, had better pacing, and overall better special effects and more gore. The two departments that the remake ONLY tops the original in is having a darker tone and better production values. I mean, I didn't HATE the remake, but the original, in my opinion, is way better.

For me, the new one aren't a good movie, but in some way, are better than the original, I can't deny that the original with good special effects and dead scenes, but I really hated how the old Nancy acted, was very not convincing. I dislike every scenes with her. The new Freddy is darker and more serious, but less creepy. The old one creepier but honestly I'm not a dark humor Freddy's Fan. I can feel that the new one is kinda like giving salute to the old one, tried to keep some good elements and give away the bad ones. Conclusion for me personally, both aren't really great, but the new one wasn't that bad as people said as well. P.S: It has already better than Friday The 13th (2009), that was the worst movie experience for me in 2009.

Don Jariyasunant wrote: I was disappointed in this one. The lead actress who played Nancy (Rooney Mara) was horrible. The only good thing about this movie was Katie Cassidy even though she was miscast as a high school student.

You preferred Kris (Cassidy) to Nancy (Mara)? Okay, I have to admit, both of their performances were stale, but Nancy was definitely better than Kris. Kris over acted in every scene and it truly shows. Nancy, while she under-acted in some parts, it wasn't in EVERY scene. Progressively, she got better. Again, that's not saying much but I find it a little questionable that you prefer Kris to Nancy.

I was disappointed in this one. The lead actress who played Nancy (Rooney Mara) was horrible. The only good thing about this movie was Katie Cassidy even though she was miscast as a high school student.

there has got to be more deleted scenes then just one i think that is wrong

The movie originally opened with a house party and the kids playing rock band (footage from the first trailer shows someone falling out of a window). Then there were multiple removed dream sequences (one involving a dream version of "Elm Street", a possessed dog, along with a scene where Freddy "unzips" out of Quentin's body), and even a new ending. Not to mention missing scenes during the "micro naps" sequences. There's a whole movie within a movie to say the least.

This movie was a major disappointment. I am a NOES fan but I was open to the idea of the new remake and actually excited about it. However, the movie was boring, the characters were half-baked, the acting was terribly stoic, and the mood was TOO serious (considering it's freaking dream world half the time).

I would skip this and buy the new line infini-film version of the original instead, heard this was absolutely horrible. I'm a huge nightmare fan and when news of this remake came to be I was already worried. How could you remake something which was so well done to begin with? The original hasn't aged badly at all and would still hold it's own today. Jackie Earl as Freddy gave me a small bit of hope which was quickly washed away by early reviews. I really hope they don't continue with sequels...

iszac wrote: Really another of disappointment cause of the lack of extras... The movie was fine, at least it was better than the original for me.

To each there own, but you thought the remake was better than the original? Like I said, I'm not going to judge you as that would be ignorant since everyone has their own opinions, but, for me, I can't see why. I mean the original had better performances, didn't take itself TOO seriously, had better pacing, and overall better special effects and more gore. The two departments that the remake ONLY tops the original in is having a darker tone and better production values. I mean, I didn't HATE the remake, but the original, in my opinion, is way better.

This film was just OK. I can see why people think it's terrible because the performances were really uninteresting and the film borrows so many cliches. Although, I was entertained and I did like the "darker" feel of the film. But, I don't think I'm going to buy. What redemption is there for buying a mediocre film with barebones extra material? The only reason to purchase is because it's a combo pack and because it'll complete my collection.

DK91 wrote: Was kinda hoping for a commentary on this one,I heard production got a bit heated between the producers and Sam Bayer the director. Would be interested to hear any extra insights into that.

surprised at the lack of extras even on the blu-ray. i wasnt expect a 3hr bonanza but considering it did better than their Friday remake and that disc had a cool amount of stuff, this seems lacking.

but i liked the movie and i'm a lifelong and huge Elm Street fan so this is a definate buy. was hoping it would come in august but october 5th isnt too much further. nice to finally have a date and all though.

Yeh this did suck BAD!!! And like someone else said i almost fell asleep. I will say i like the cover art though. This is actually taking a while(a while these days when most are out 3-4 months after theatres) but i guess halloween is the goal here

Disciple wrote: I'm a huge Nightmare on Elm Street and Freddy fan so I'll have to get it eventually but I fear I will be massively disappointed when I see it. Oh well, can't be worse than Freddy Vs. Jason...is it?

Oh yes, it's worse than Freddy vs. Jason. FvJ is at least enjoyable; this was insultingly awful on every level.